In response to my posting on Peter Birkenhead's article on "The Secret", Stephen Black wrote: >Boy, these physics types are picky. Perhaps Birkenhead did confuse >electricity and magnetism. So what? After all, aren't these linked at >a fundamental level? Ever hear of _electromagnetism_, dude?
>I think we have to give Birkenhead credit for recognizing the >absurdity of the analogy used in _The Secret_ , that thoughts >are like magnets because for both, like attracts like when, for >magnets at least, the opposite is true. So do thoughts, like magnets, >really attract their opposite? Sounds good to me. Maybe this post >is an example. C'mon, Stephen! I started by thanking you for directing our attention to the article. What more was there to say on that, as I've sure everyone on TIPS agrees with the criticism of Oprah that was the central point of the article? Having done that, what's wrong with my pointing out that when Birkenhead (rightly) rebuts the absurd "magnet" analogy in *The Secret* he nevertheless writes scientific nonsense? Coming from someone who (as we all appreciate) not infrequently brings up non-psychological topics on TIPS, this seems a strange thing to criticise. -:) Electromagnetism has nothing to do with what Birkenhead wrote. Just to spell it out: There are no such things as "positively charged magnets", and magnets do not attract charged particles. Sorry to be "picky", but elementary factual errors of this magnitude offend me. :-) For the record, the basic electromagnetic phenomena are that there is an induced electromotive force when an electrical conductor moves relative to a magnetic field, producing a flow of electrons (current) in the conductor if there is a complete circuit, and, conversely, the path of a charged particle moving relative to a magnetic field is deflected. Allen Esterson Former lecturer, Science Department Southwark College, London http://www.esterson.org --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
